For Companies Both Big and Small
Case study

Abstract
This paper is about the case study of two companies: CPS energy, a Texas- based company and Lloyd’s construction, a Minnesota based company. To put it briefly, these companies, at the time had a problem with implementing new technology at the office. They encountered resistance from employees. And compared to their competitors, they were not productive enough and were far behind in terms of efficiency. Relating to this I have prepared why people resist change and proposed some effective strategies to deal with them. The paper gives a detail understanding of the two company’s situation and how they could also have solved it.

Introduction
Technology is truly a boon when you know about it and use it. But it becomes a curse when you can’t. That is the bitter truth about technology. And sadly one of the very prominent reason some business fail is because of lack of investment in technology (Bower & Christensen, 1995). This specially happens among companies which have their history and reputation in the society while using their traditional methods or equipments. This case study is the same.
CPS energy is a Texas-based, energy providing company owned by the municipal of the region. A decade ago, they had roughly 4000 workforce, providing its services to the community and riding the road to riches (Markas, 2013). Their customers and workforce were satisfied. But from a different perspective, it was very clear that the company was far behind in terms of productivity and efficiency. Unlike companies like UPS and FedEx, they had a lot of workforce in their business than what the company was asking for (Markas, 2013).
So, in short, while they were in fact in profit, they were losing a lot of potential profits. But they could not have just laid off their employees. Additionally, they were using their old techniques of working without any major use of technology. They were not productive or efficient enough as compared to their counterparts. . So, they knew that a change was eminent.
Just to give a brief idea of what 2006 was like at the time in terms of technology. Around the year, new advance form of smart communication devices were popping up. Apple was making some major improvements in tech world. They were bringing lots of new techs in terms of computing and were soon to release the phone that started it all (Apple, N.D.). Google were also starting to show major improvements in software and user experiences. True 3D display and robotics were major highlights. Simply put, the year decade before was a golden age for the future (Allen, 2016). It was the year for smart, technology and productivity. And many major companies were incorporating these changes in techs. CPS energy, as a late bloomer, then decided to make some changes.
The company was spending a lot in manual labor. Laying off some employees would mean getting out of competition. Furthermore, main problem for the company at the time was incorporating new technology in their company. And so, they brought the Magellan project.
They made improvements in terms of productivity, cost reduction, and time management. They incorporated Smartphone to their work process. This improved communication, decreased time consumption. Previously for instance, workers had to go to the site to diagnose the work and look for problems, then get back to base and get the instructions and send available worker back to the site. It was a really hectic job that got easier with use of Smartphone. With Smartphone they could do all this in very less amount of time. It was a very good implementation of technology (Markas, 2013). Similarly, they used GPS to track the employees at the site and routes.
2006 was the era of smart technology and Smartphone. And, CPS energy using Smartphone definitely proved them to be profitable. Using Smartphone was very helpful to CPS energy. Through the use of Smartphone they have made significant improvement in revenue and reduced the cost. Through the use of Smartphone, they are compensating the cost of manual labor with time reduction and efficiency. After that, the following years helped them gain supply chain efficiency. In recent years they are making major improvements in solar farm energy source (Skurnik, 2016).
In the similar case, Lloyd’s construction from Eagan, Minnesota had the similar type of problem. Previously it was hard for the company to keep track of their employees. Specifically, the time between break and work dispatchment was unorganized. This meant slower work progress. But they solved this problem using a mobile productivity software suite called eTrace (Markas, 2013). This increased the work roughly 1 and ½ times faster. Other relevant costs were reduced. Using mobile smart technology definitely proved effective to them.
In a nutshell, smartphone at the time was an effective measure for improved business strategies. Instead of holding meetings, office organizations could hold small discussions over their smartphone, over mail. Companies like Lloyd and CPS correctly used mobile techcnology to promote efficiency and increase productivity.
Why there is resistance for technology change? A very simple case in why people resist is because lot of times they feel the obligation to cope with the change and apply them to the company. Additionally, some of the companies like CPS who run their business with traditional method and manual labor have the risk of laying off workers when a new technology or system is introduced. Bower and Christensen (1995), further point out that customers have an extraordinary power to weild the company’s investment. So, sometimes if people don’t like the newly introduced technology they reject the change. In our cases, CPS had a lot of employees and manual labors as opposed to their counter parts. And incorporating new technology meant laying off the employees. Additionally, they had a misconception that technology brings little change (Markas, 2013). So, they resisted change in technology. In case of Lloyd’s construction, the staffs were not comfortable with the change. They had to be guided to use even the basic features of phone (Markas, 2013). They had the obligation to change their self and learn to use the new technology, which is why resists change. Strebel (1996) point out that top executives see technology and innovation as an opportunity for growth and change. Operating level staffs however, see only benefits on an individual level. This creates resistance in the companies. But there is definitely room for improvement. Some propositions for improving these initiatives are as follows:
I. The best way to help the company implement the change would be to think of the change as an internal marketing and not as a hindrance to the employee’s benefits. The company has to make them realize that the idea for change is for them.
II. Similarly, another best way to implement the change would be to transfer the ownership for change (Leonard-Barton & Kraus, 1985). What this would do is that they will develop a sense of responsibility for change. They will realize that they have control and have their say in the company.
III. Companies should prepare them to the change. For instance if a new machine is about to be introduced in the office, they need to make sure they understand why they are bringing it (Lawrence, 1969). Perhaps, small level of change or bringing small machineries in the office will change the perspective. They can propose a employee exchange with foreign countries to develop their learning curve.

References
Allen, J. (2016, July 15). 2006: A Look Back at the Biggest Tech from 10 Years Ago. Paste Magazine .
Apple. (N.D.). Apple Inc. Retrieved July 16, 2016, from Apple Inc website: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995, Jan/Feb). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review .
Lawrence, P. R. (1969). How to Deal With Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review .
Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. (1985). Implementing New Technology. Harvard business Review .
Markas, G. M. (2013). Introduction to Information System (16 ed.). NY: Mcgraw-Hill Irwin.
Skurnik, J. (2016, July 11). CPS Energy putting final touches on new solar farm. Ksat.com .
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review .